Showing posts with label Todd Pletcher. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Todd Pletcher. Show all posts

  • Analyzing Kentucky Derby Trainers

    POSTED Mar 22, 2014 By Derek Simon
    Last year, I did a piece on Kentucky Derby trainers. In it, I detailed a unique method I had derived to assess the merits of Derby trainers.

    The piece (and my method) came about following a blog posting by my friend and colleague Ed DeRosa, in which he defended Todd Pletcher’s (then) 1-for-31 record in America’s biggest race.

    “Admittedly, 1-for-31 isn't the most impressive stat,” DeRosa wrote on Feb. 26, 2013, “but it's also an unfair way to couch the opportunities he's had to win America's most famous race because he's only tried 12 times (but with 31 horses).”

    At best (barring any dead heats for the win), Pletcher would be 12-for-31, DeRosa argued. Furthermore, given the large fields that the Run for the Roses typically attracts, Pletcher’s miniscule win rate is to be expected.

    “Pletcher is 1-for-31 (3.2%) in an era when all starters are 13-for-246 (5.3%),” he pointed out. “That makes all starters not trained by Todd Pletcher 12-for-215 (5.6%). Sure, a trainer of his stature could be expected to perform a little better than all starters, but even winning the race a second time gets him to just 6.45%, and we're about to see winning it twice is no easy task let alone the charming third time that would make him a nearly 10% trainer in one of the most difficult races in the world to win.”

    In my original piece, I noted that although I had “no qualm with DeRosa’s math — it’s spot-on — I do take issue with his conclusion, and particularly with the way he approached the subject.

    “Frankly, it’s the same problem I have with the winner of the National Handicapping Championship being awarded an Eclipse Award as Handicapper of the Year: In low-probability events, it is generally more illustrative to look at overall consistency rather than focus solely on winners and losers.”

    “Don’t get me wrong,” I continued, “I’m not taking a shot at past and future winners of the NHC, but there is a reason that there has been no repeat champion since the tournament began in 2000; just like the Kentucky Derby, one’s chances of winning are miniscule. Hence, judging the competence of a handicapper based on whether or not he/she won the National Handicapping Championship is silly. Ditto winning or losing the Derby.”

    I then presented a chart showing a correlation I found between my Win Factor Report Form Ratings (a number from 0 to 100 percent that I use to assess a horse’s finishing position as well as its beaten lengths in a particular contest) and its final Kentucky Derby odds:

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    So, with the above chart in mind, I offer statistics for selected trainers with horses on the 2014 Kentucky Derby trail:

    (Click on image to enlarge)

  • The Travers Stakes 'Conspiracy'

    POSTED Aug 23, 2013 By Derek Simon
    I’m not one for conspiracy theories.

    Despite the recent CIA admission that Area 51 does, indeed, exist, I don’t believe that little green guys from a distant planet are playing an extraterrestrial version of “Punk’d” on the citizens — all 57 of ‘em — of Rachel, Nev.

    Likewise, I don’t believe that the Moon Landing was an elaborate hoax or that Elvis Presley hasn’t left the building.

    But I’m concerned about Saturday’s Travers Stakes.

    In what way, you ask? Have I received word that Tupac Shakur will be listed as a late rider change, replacing Joel Rosario aboard Orb? Am I privy to inside information on Moreno?

    Of course not.

    We all know that even Tupac’s hologram is too heavy to ride Orb and that trainer Eric Guillot would never pass on secret information regarding his stable star — he’s already made his thoughts on Moreno public… over and over again.

    No, my suspicions have to do with the tactics of two primary contenders in Saturday’s Saratoga feature and the unintended consequences of an oft-dissed and dismissed racing rule.

    You see, back in the early days of racing, the powers that be realized that horses owned and/or trained by the same individual(s) presented a dilemma to the betting public: mainly, that one or more of those entrants would be in the race strictly to benefit one of the others.

    For example, everybody with functioning gray cells knows that Hedevar was not entered to win the 1967 Woodward Stakes or the 1968 Brooklyn Handicap. Trainer Frank Whitely, Jr. entered Hedevar in those races for one reason and one reason only: to run Dr. Fager off his feet and set the table for Damascus, Whitely’s 1967 Horse of the Year.

    However, since both Hedevar and Damascus were coupled in the wagering, i.e. they ran as a single betting interest, it really didn’t matter what Hedevar did — unless you were a fan of Dr. Fager, of course (sportsmanship is not the issue I’m tackling here).
    Over the years, as field sizes waned and the public’s appetite for more betting choices increased, the rules governing coupled entries have been greatly relaxed. Today it is not uncommon to see horses owned by the same connections listed as separate betting interests.


    For the most part, these relaxed rules have not posed a problem… but Saturday’s Travers Stakes is different.



    In the Travers, two of the main contenders, both trained by Todd Pletcher, have similar running styles and what they decide to do, tactically, could literally spell the difference between victory and defeat — for one or both of them.

    Of course, I’m talking about Verrazano, the 2-1 morning line favorite in the Travers, and Palace Malice, the 5-2 second choice.



    NOTE: Click HERE for a free sample report that explains what the data above means.

    Both horses like to be on or near the pace and, while I was not overly impressed with Verrazano’s latest score in the Haskell (I thought the -6 late speed ration was a little weak), I do think that his success — or lack thereof — hinges on what his stablemate elects to do.

    Simply put, Palace Malice is incredibly versatile. He won the Belmont after recording a ridiculously fast -11 early speed ration and, then, rated beautifully in the Jim Dandy while earning a 0 ESR.

    When one considers that both Verrazano and Moreno prefer a slow and steady pace — Guillot has publicly admitted this (I told you earlier the guy likes to talk) — I think “Palace” should press the early issue. In effect, do to Moreno and Verrazano what Hedevar did to Dr. Fager nearly 40 years ago — run them off their feet.

    The question is: Will he? Will Pletcher allow one of his entries to compromise the chances of the other? Or will he play it safe and send neither horse to the lead.

    Guillot paints a picture of what could happen should the latter transpire.

    "I would imagine Todd wouldn't be pressing his own horse with Palace Malice and Verrazano together; that wouldn't make much sense," he told The Bloodhorse. "So, somebody's going to push me, and, hopefully, they push me so far up front, or push me to the point where the other one can't catch up. That would be the best-case scenario."

    This is why the coupling rules were initially put in place… and why I’m concerned about the Travers Stakes.

    Biggie vs. Tupac

    On this week’s “Simon Says” podcast for TwinSpires.com, I had an interesting discussion with Ed DeRosa about the so-called East Coast Bias.


    Knowing that my colleague was born in Ohio — he recently went back and his city was gone (sorry, I couldn’t help myself) — I naturally assumed that Ed would vehemently disagree with my assertion that the East Coast Bias in racing is alive and well.

    Much to my surprise, Ed agreed with me.

    “There’s an East Coast Bias,” he stated, adding, “By and large, I sorta agree with your point that the onus to ship east is completely unfair when many of these horses — champions — don’t ship west either.”

    I think the following table, which lists the last 10 Horse of the Year winners illustrates the point quite nicely:

    (Click on image to enlarge)


    FREE Win Factor Report for Saturday’s Jackpot Five

    Click HERE to receive your free Win Factor Report for Saturday’s Jackpot Five races.

  • A Kentucky Derby Best Bet

    POSTED Apr 20, 2013 By Derek Simon
    For many moons, I have talked about how potent horses with improving late speed rations (my own pace figures measuring late energy disbursement) are in the Kentucky Derby. Unfortunately, after several years with at least one qualifying animal (2000-2007), the plays dried up. Since 2008, only Chocolate Candy and Hansen showed the requisite improvement — and both of them raced over synthetic surfaces, casting doubt on the numbers.

    Hansen’s “improvement,” in particular, was almost surely the result of his switching from dirt to Polytrack for his final prep in the Blue Grass Stakes on April 14, 2012. Although the white colt with the blue tail (thank heavens that sideshow is a thing of the past) recorded a -4 late speed ration at Keeneland that day, LSRs recorded on turf and synthetic surfaces are typically 5-7 points lower than those recorded on dirt. Hence, the -7 figure that Hansen earned in the Gotham six weeks earlier was probably better than his (likely inflated) Blue Grass number.

    I’ve got some exciting news, though: There is a legitimate improving-LSR contender in this year’s Run for the Roses. Before I reveal who it is, however, some history is in order…

    Eureka! The Key to Derby Success Has Been Found

     When a great scientific breakthrough is achieved, it is often referred to as a “Eureka Moment.” Supposedly, this dates back to Archimedes, who, while attempting to determine whether or not King Hiero II’s new laurel-shaped crown was solid gold or a combination of lesser metals, drew a bath and made a startling discovery.

    The famous Greek mathematician, engineer, physicist, inventor and singer/songwriter (sure, why not?) found he could determine the density of the crown — without destroying it — simply by noting how much water it displaced.

    Overcome with joy and excitement, Archimedes, sans clothing, took to the streets, yelling, “Eureka! I have found it!”

    I wasn’t naked — nor did I feel compelled to jog — when I had my Eureka Moment on May 7, 2005, but I certainly did my share of screaming. Earlier, you see, while formulating my wagers for the 131st Kentucky Derby, I had unearthed an amazing statistic.

    I had observed that, in the two decades prior to the first Saturday in May of 2005, eight winners of the Run for the Roses had shown improving late speed rations, or LSRs, in their final two Kentucky Derby preps. In addition, these Derby champs often paid hefty prices — like the $51.00 that Thunder Gulch offered his backers in 1995 or the $64.60 that Charismatic returned in 1999.

    There were two Derby entrants that showed improving LSRs in 2005: Buzzards Bay and Giacomo. I settled on the latter, as his overall form looked best and he had established his class as a two-year-old when he was runner-up in the Grade I Hollywood Futurity. 

     And, like Archimedes before me, I felt the exhilaration of success, as Giacomo flew by the leaders en route to a half-length score in Louisville that year (I’m sure my shouts of encouragement helped spur him on). True, I didn’t receive the undying gratitude of a king or everlasting fame for my Eureka Moment, but I did collect a $102.60 mutuel.

    It was more than enough.

    Since then, no horse with improving LSRs has experienced Derby glory, although Hard Spun and Curlin completed the trifecta behind Street Sense in 2007. Nonetheless, it is an angle worth looking out for, as I’m sure it will pay off again before long. 

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    Rules

    1) Horse must have earned higher LSRs in each of its last two races.

    2) All horse’s last three races must’ve been contested over a route of ground (mile or greater) within the past 120 days and at least two of those races must’ve been graded stakes. 

     And the potential (fingers crossed) 2013 qualifier…

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    Verrazano fits the profile of the kind of runner we’re looking for in every respect and, in fact, has improved his LSR each time he’s run. The son of More Than Ready followed up a -13 LSR in his career debut, with a -5 in his second race, a -4 in his third start and, finally, a +1 figure in his final prep, the Grade I Wood Memorial.

    He’s going to have to overcome the dreaded Curse of Apollo (see below), of course, but I’m very impressed with the way Todd Pletcher has handled this guy. I’ve been critical of what I’ve felt was Pletcher’s one-size-fits-all approach in the past, but, this year, the veteran conditioner appears to have abandoned that strategy and I think — regardless of what happens in Louisville on the first Saturday in May — his stock will be the better for it. (Has any trainer been hotter on the 2013 Triple Crown trail than Pletcher?)

    Eureka!
    (Click on image to enlarge)

    The Curse of Apollo

    No horse since Apollo in 1882 has won the Kentucky Derby without having raced as a two-year-old. Below is a look at the Derby entrants that were unraced at two — and how they fared in Louisville — since 1937:

    (Click on image to enlarge)

  • The ‘Real’ Derby Record of Today’s Top Trainers

    POSTED Mar 9, 2013 By Derek Simon
    About two weeks ago, my friend and colleague Ed DeRosa made the assertion that, contrary to popular opinion, trainer Todd Pletcher’s 1-for-31 Kentucky Derby record was perfectly acceptable.

    “Admittedly, 1-for-31 isn't the most impressive stat,” DeRosa wrote on Feb. 26, “but it's also an unfair way to couch the opportunities he's had to win America's most famous race because he's only tried 12 times (but with 31 horses).”

    At best (barring any dead heats for the win), Pletcher would be 12-for-31, my podcast partner argued. Furthermore, given the large fields the Run for the Roses typically attracts, is it fair to expect Pletcher to have saddled more than one Derby winner over the past 12 years?

    According to Ed, no.

    “Pletcher is 1-for-31 (3.2%) in an era when all starters are 13-for-246 (5.3%),” he points out. “That makes all starters not trained by Todd Pletcher 12-for-215 (5.6%). Sure, a trainer of his stature could be expected to perform a little better than all starters, but even winning the race a second time gets him to just 6.45%, and we're about to see winning it twice is no easy task let alone the charming third time that would make him a nearly 10% trainer in one of the most difficult races in the world to win.”

    DeRosa then made the point mathematically, presenting an array of tables and charts that would’ve made Carl Gauss proud — and proving that Pletcher’s single win is the most likely scenario based on the final odds of his (Pletcher’s) Derby starters.

    While I have no qualm with DeRosa’s math — it’s spot-on — I do take issue with his conclusion, and particularly with the way he approached the subject. Frankly, it’s the same problem I have with the winner of the National Handicapping Championship being awarded an Eclipse Award as Handicapper of the Year: In low-probability events, it is generally more illustrative to look at overall consistency rather than focus solely on winners and losers.

    Don’t get me wrong: I’m not taking a shot at past and future winners of the NHC, but there is a reason that there has been no repeat champion since the tournament began in 2000 — just like the Kentucky Derby, one’s chances of winning are miniscule. Hence, judging the competence of a handicapper based on whether or not he/she won the National Handicapping Championship is silly.

    Ditto winning or losing the Derby.

    However, at least in regard to America’s biggest race, there is another standard. A recent study I did found a direct correlation between a horse’s final odds and its “Form Rating” (a number from 0 to 100 percent that I derived to assess a horse’s finishing position as well as its beaten lengths in a particular contest):

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    So, using the results obtained from the chart above, I thought it might be interesting to look at how Todd Pletcher and other top trainers performed in Louisville on the first Saturday in May. Primarily, I looked at two things:

    1) The average expected Form Rating compared to the average actual Form Rating.
    2) The number of times the trainer’s Derby entrants performed better than expected compared to the number of times they performed worse than expected.

    The results of this study were illuminating.

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    Not only do we find that Todd Pletcher’s Louisville ledger is, indeed, dreadful (just 23 percent of his entrants performed better than their odds suggested), but look who’s at the top of the heap — Dale Romans, a guy who has yet to visit the Kentucky Derby winner’s circle.

    (Click on image to enlarge)

    Romans has saddled four Derby runners in his career and only Sharp Humor in 2006 ran worse than the tote board predicted.

    Meanwhile, Pletcher can take solace from the fact that, when it comes to Derby disappointments, no one comes close to Bill Mott. In addition to being 0-for-7 in the big race, Mott’s charges have recorded just a two percent average Form Rating, despite a 21 percent expectation.